Kal-El is Ka-Razy!

Superman Returns. I give it 3 and a quarter stars. The acting was generally good. I like that guy who played Lois Lane's husband (he's from Oklahoma you know). I really liked how they spliced in footage from Marlon Brando's performance of Jor-El from the original movie. Kind of creepy, though. It's kind of like TuPac. Anyway, it was a decent take on an seemingly tired character. But, I will say with confidence that I enjoyed the movie. One question, however. So, uh...Superman and Lois had a kid together (shock. surprise). It's not so shocking if you saw the love scene (well...assumed sex, anyway) in Superman II. It makes sense that Lois may have gotten knocked up at that point. But, still...um, how do I put this? Ok, so Superman is so strong that he literally carried an entire island into space. That's pretty strong. It's almost a kind of strength that one could...easily loose control of. So, fine. He had sex with Lois. Big deal. But Lois should be dead, right? He should have shot right through her! (Lord I hope none of my parishioners read this). It's not a new question, sure. I know I'm not the first guy to wonder. But, ok, he is Superman, so maybe he has crazy control over himself. Anyway, besides that...well done film. I liked Kevin Spacey as Lex Luthor, although...well it's a movie thing. The movies never really treated Lex Luthor like the comics. In the movies he's almost an insane comic relief to Superman's ever-serious boy scout-ness. So Spacey was well in line with Gene Hackman's interpretation. Still, the Luther as billionaire business giant (he's the epitomy of Big Business) or even as a mad scientist bent on ruling the world (a part of his character that kindly disappeared by the 1980's), the movies never really treat these aspects too seriously. The special effects were great, and I even enjoyed all of the allusions to Jesus (I, even I, thought it was thought provoking). It kind of reminded me of Mark Waid's "Kingdom Come,"this god complex that comes with being earth's mightiest hero. Of course, I think that there was something a bit shady going on with the telling of this story. Now, this is just me, but, the thing about Superman is that he was always the best of the best. This is classic DC storytelling, right, that the hero will always triumph over evil because the hero is the embodiment of all that is good, right, and moral. The hero is the archtype of the (dare I say) superman. It's German triumphalism. The heroes of Marvel, however, were different. As Stan Lee is constantly saying, "They have flaws." Even Captain America, big boy scout that he is, has a flaw - he is a man out of time. Anyway, my point is that in this Superman movie, the writers took a cue from the Marvel universe and decided that Superman needed to have real flaws to his character. He can't (literally) get the girl this time. What's Superman without Lois Lane? Also, there's this thing about him abandoning the people of earth for five years. He has this internal struggle about what his responsibilities are to humanity. The only thing missing was them jacking the classic Spiderman line "with great power comes great responsibility". I'm not at all pissed about this raping of the Marvel paradigm, because I think it makes Superman more interesting a character all around. But, still, I wonder where it came from. Okay, that's enough about that. Superman Returns. Liked it. Go see it.